Kerala Court January 2008 Judgments

Leela Vs. the Manager, National Insurance Co.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ408; 2008(1)KLT705

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant is challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of a settlement. The above award shows that it was not signed by the claimant (appellant). Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998 provides that every award should be signed by parties. Since the claimant did not sign the settlement, the award is non-est in law. When such contentions are raised, the regular appeal will not lie but only a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India has to be resorted. However, in this case appeal was directed to be numbered by another Division Bench after holding that parties have not signed the settlement. Hence it is non-est of law. We use the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and we declare that parties have not signed the settlement and the impugned award cannot be considered as an award. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner earlier approached the Registry by filing a writ peti...

Ramanand Electro Coats Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)20VST254(Ker)

K.M. Joseph J.1. Since common questions arise in all these cases, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. S.T. Rev. Case Nos. 174 of 2004, 79 of 2007 and 81 of 2007 are filed by the assessee, while S.T. Rev. Case No. 184 of 2005 is filed by the State of Kerala.3. S.T.Rev. No. 79 of 2007 relates to the assessment year 1997-98. S.T. Rev. No. 81 of 2007 relates to the assessment year 1998-99. S.T. Rev. No. 174 of 2004 relates to the assessment year 1995-96. S.T. Rev. No. 184 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1996-97.4. The assessee is a works contractor engaged in powder coating of metal cabinets. The case of the petitioner/assessee, in brief, is as follows:Various manufacturers entrust their goods, i.e., different types of unfinished products, like metal cabinets, lift panels, stabilizers, UPS frames, panel board, booster cover, etc., to the petitioner for epoxy powder coating. The assessee carries out powder coating of the cabinets supplied by the customers. This involved sale...

The Managing Director, Ksrtc Vs. T. Padmavathy

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ337; 2008(1)KLT584

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed by the KSRTC, feeling aggrieved by the orders of the Lok Ayukta, directing payment of terminal benefits to its employees, overlooking the priority list maintained by it. The petitioner points out that this Court issued an interim direction in CMP No. 604/01 in WA. No. 289/01 on 18-10-2001, as to how the terminal benefits should be released to the retired employees of the KSRTC. The said order happened to be passed, as the KSRTC failed to pay the terminal benefits due to its retired employees in time. Several Writ Petitions happened to be filed before this Court, seeking directions against the KSRTC to pay terminal benefits without delay. In the above background, the above said interim order was passed. The Honourable Supreme Court also upheld the said interim order, as evident from Ext. P6 order. (The exhibits referred in this Judgment are those produced in Writ Petition (C) No. 33183/07). Later, making the said interim order absol...

R. Chandran Vs. K.V. Krishna Kumar and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Sri. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.10th November 1998 passed by CDRF, Trichur in OP.174/98. The complaint in the said OP.174/98 was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 to 4 as opposite parties claiming refund of the Kuri amount and compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the Kuri and disbursement of the Kuri amount due to the complainant. The opposite parties disputed the case in the complaint and contented that the complainant is not a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the said complaint is not maintainable in view of the pendency of criminal case and criminal investigation involving the kuri transaction. The Lower forum accepted the case of the opposite parties to a certain extent and thereby dismissed the complaint in OP.174/98 on the ground that the criminal case and criminal investigat...

Geojit Securities Limited Vs. Cyriac Thomas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite party has come up in this appeal against the order dated:15..11..2001 of the CDRF, Kottayam wherein and whereby the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6469.19 and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. 2. The main grievances voiced in the complaint are that he has been engaged in trading of shares and securities with the opposite party through their Kottyam branch. The complainant has purchased 50 shares of Max India Limited on 19..1..2000 through the opposite party and at the same time the opposite party agreed to sell 25 shares. On 20..1..2000 the opposite party sold 25 shares for a sum of Rs.11,124.56. Thereafter the complainant himself has sold 50 numbers of shares on 10..2..2000 with the belief that the opposite party has not sold that 25 shares on 20..1..2000. However as the complainant was having only 25 shares with him at the time of sale on 10..2..2000 and as the opposite party has not informed him of the sale of 25 shar...

High Range Estate Employees' Assn. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1129]; 2008(1)KLJ392; (2008)IIILLJ43Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The unions representing the workmen concerned in ID. No. 8/06 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki are the petitioners herein. They are challenging Ext.P 1 preliminary order passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was dismissal of some workmen. The workmen were dismissed after conducting domestic enquiries. Therefore the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiries as a preliminary point and passed Ext.Pl order holding that the enquiries were held validly and properly and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer were also supported by evidence on record.2. This preliminary order is challenged in this writ petition on the following grounds.First it that the enquiry proceedings on the face of it do not show that in the enquiries the management was represented by a presenting officer and therefore it must be presumed that the enquiry officer had acted both as prosecutor and Judge which would amount to violation of princip...

George Kutty Abraham and ors. Vs. Secretary, Kottayam District Co-oper ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker137

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in these Writ Appeals is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) are applicable to District Co-operative Banks and Urban Banks and whether those Banks can invoke those provisions to take over and sell the assets of the loanees, given by way of security. Writ Appeal No. 2070/2007 is treated as the main case.W.A. No. 2070 of 20072. The appellants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, availed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank. The third appellant, who is the mother of the first appellant, availed another loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the said Bank. Landed Property, having an extent of 1.052 hectares, belonging to the first appellant was given as security for the said loans. The loans were availed in October 2004 and as per the loan agreement, the repayment was to...

K. Subair Vs. the Assistant Excise Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ345

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. A mini lorry driven by the petitioner, was intercepted and seized by an excise party on 16-11-2004, for illegal transport of 570 litres of spirit. The petitioner was arrested. Another escaped from the spot. A motor cycle, escorting that vehicle, was also seized. That motor cycle, admittedly, belongs to the petitioner, who is the first accused in the criminal case.2. The registration particulars available in the mini lorry with Tamil Nadu registration, turned out to be fake. None raised any claim for that mini lorry, nor objected to confiscation of that vehicle even in spite of public advertisement.3. Following the detailed investigation conducted by the Excise Inspector about the involvement of both the vehicles in the offence and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, an order was passed confiscating both the vehicles to Government, in exercise of authority under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077, hereinafter referred to as the...

M/S.Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties in OP.453/01 are under orders to refund Rs.3110/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The complainant had alleged that the high speed Internet connection provided to him by the opposite party was not having the speed as promised that their connection will be capable of delivering 500 times greater than fastest telephone modem. He paid a sum of Rs.4280 for the particular ADL high speed Cable Internet Connection on 12.2.2001. The complainant is a business executive by profession and the Internet connection was found to be of low speed and as it served no purpose the same was disconnected. 3. The opposite party asserted that the promised speed of 500 times greater than the fastest television modem is genuine. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant Ext.P1 to P9, C1 and D1. 5. The expert commissioner, a person having B.Tech (...

Lloyd Naronha Vs. Vijayan Menon Kurikath and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party in OP:192/2000 in the file of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who along with the 2nd respondent is under orders to refund a sum of 250/- Dirhams or its equivalent in rupees as the value of the instrument ie, the Mobile phone and SIM card and to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. We find that the complainant had claimed refund of the cost of SIM card only which is mentioned as 250/- Dirhams. No evidence has been adduced to establish that the SIM card would cost 250/- Dirhams. In the circumstances we find that the order as such cannot be sustained. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. Hence the order of the Forum is setaside. The matter is remitted to the Forum for fresh disposal on merits after permitting the parties to adduce further evidence if they so desire. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 12..2..2008. Office is directed to transmit the records to the ...